The goal is to create a genre title that applies retroactively and inherits the qualities of metal that we want to see in future acts, then? Sorry if this is obvious - I just wanted to ask and give a statement to be clear.

I like Bagel's suggestion alot - in the most general sense, metal should be referred to as cultural music. Instead of a genre heading we get a valuable way of talking about the relevant music and it should indeed start interesting discussions as he pointed out. It doesn't need to be opposed to compositional music. It can often involve complex composition, but it doesn't have to. The important distinction to be made is to oppose it to the general mass of cultureless pop music. It is then our job to discuss this culture.

As summoned said, genre titles apply retroactively, so my anxiety was then: what good does it do to create one now when we don't even know what lies on the horizon yet? Well if we want a general heading, referring to it as cultural music will work. Whatever direction the next great surge is in, we will find it by seeing it as a movement in Hessian cultural music and shared world view. hi.arc.tow is valuable to this end, for it can consolidate potential candidates.

Do we really need a genre heading, though? Death and black metal have important historical ties. There is a certain tradition that is followed, a way of playing that is passed down, inspires, and then is worked on further. This musical side is important to the genre distinction. What seems to get lost is the culture and world view side of the genres. Are we not simply interested in music that has not lost its culture, regardless of what kind of metal it fits into? I think the fact that there are these two sides to a genre distinction makes creating one retroactively that will also apply to all great things on the horizon incredibly difficult. New stuff will probably take from death and black, but also from who knows what else. We are simply interested in hessian metal, in metal that does not stray from its own culture.

There have been some good suggestions, so I don't see why this discussion reeks of fail... unless the it was wrong-headed from the start, in which case it would be helpful to flesh out the reasons why this is not worth talking about. I think it's pretty damn interesting to think about.

1. Write the best reviews of the best/most historically relevant bands, no matter what date they were released.2. Promote the living hell out of these bands, artists, ideas.3. Get as many people in here, and show them something they can enjoy, in words and music.

A parallel way of helping Metal would be to entirely dismiss the stuff that simply uses the aesthetics of Metal as being "Metal" at all, no matter the number of people who think otherwise. Rock music with Heavy Metal distortion isn't Metal if it came out after 1982 or so ; and only that proto-Metal wave, that is, the gestalt of the genre, can carry some Rock inside it and still claim to be Metal ; for there's more than simply distorted guitars to Metal. People fail to grasp that a genre of music cannot simply be based on and defined by aesthetics : if it does, this is not a genre of music ; it's just, well, aesthetics. Metal is Metal because it has more to it than simply using distorted guitars. Metal is Metal because it associated an aesthetics to a type of composition that fitted it ; not because it created an aesthetics upon an existing genre. Metal isn't rock music with a new aesthetics : Metal is an unprecedented type of composition on the electric guitar instrument, using the new aesthetics that some musicians found while they were playing Rock. While the early development of Metal consisted of bands that played rock and worked to strive away from rock music, they precisely did that : the entire history of Metal is that of what differenciates it from rock, not of what relates to it. There isn't a single drop of Rock in Metal since Metal precisely consists in, from its inception and by definition, the pure DIFFERENCE that emerged inside it and then became more autonomous as time passed, throwing away the remnants of its host. Metal is pretty much like the Alien : having some human blood and flesh remains over him after bursting the starship crew member's chest doesn't make him anything human. To push the comparison further, classical/traditional/folk music laid hidden eggs into Entartete Kunst before dying, and it bursted the hell out of Rock music's chest some decades later. Take that, modernity ! :-)

That may be the best explanation of my thoughts. I have always defended that stance when discussing "metal aesthetics" with people I've met. Always chatting about that newest Cannibal Corpse stuff and all that.

I tell them that this is not metal at all and try to show them the primal spirit of metal and that it is not just about being brutal and distorted.

However if we are able to spread it in that way we don't need any new fancy names. Just spreading the word about the right stuff in "layman's terms" so that everybody understands what the fuzz is all about may just be enough.

However if we are able to spread it in that way we don't need any new fancy names. Just spreading the word about the right stuff in "layman's terms" so that everybody understands what the fuzz is all about may just be enough.

I think that's true, but I like the positive logic of finding a new name: oh, sure, all that stuff is metal, but this is vital metal.

Either that, or spread the idea that you should only listen to the best. Hey, it worked for Martha Stewart.

I think the "layman's terms" is crucial, as is ending some of the pretense of this place (a culture of critique, and yes I'm alluding to Kevin Macdonald for the four of you who know who he is) and making it accessible to the normal person without pandering.

Just by changing the name of an style wont change a lot.. how much will it take before it crumbles? 2 years?, maybe 5?Not only the name needs a change... but also the whole music. Sadly, bands like Averse Sefira can be copied easily... at a musical level obviously, lyrically and conceptually , no.But we already know that 90% of listeners don't really care about content but merely about gratifying their egos by listening "extreme music" so they appear as "badass goths" in their groupof "friends".Esoteric metal is a name I like... reminds me of the band esoteric... not really accessible to hipsters, just those that can understand this type of music. metal will have to evolve artistically again. Perhaps drop a little the consistence of this rock familiarity.The other day I was listening a couple of bands like Averse Sefira, Evilfeast, etc... and it came to my mind that their sound its simply ageless. Unlike newer bands, which soon get "rusty".There's many ideas out there, (Ildjarn, anyone?, or even summoning, esoteric, etc). That could be a start point.

'Esoteric metal' or some similar and somewhat unfimiliar term to the general populous could generate a sort of curiosity. I think this new genre will develop its own name though with due time and natural selection.

I think we should use label's like hi.arc.tow as a vehicle. Hunt out and get the quality bands coming up such as Abhorrent, Cosmic Atrophyhttp://www.myspace.com/atrophyhouston, and ANUS member's projects (I'll be attempting to sign my band to hi.arc.tow soon when we get a solid footing). In the future perhaps, start a tour of quality bands getting the word out of this new genre and promoting worthwhile music.

Beaten to it. Much what I was going to say. Hi.arc.tow was born in a chaotic way but we've come around to thinking it should be just what you describe; a focus point for whats emergent and crystalizes around a common viewpoint: ie taking music seriously (without being pretentious). Whats required now is a better articulation of this objective (getting around to it) and a plan for fascilitating it.

as for a new name/label for the future direction of metal:My vote goes to Neoclassical, and I am not worried that it refers to tangential styles aswell (the opposite in fact: I think its good that aesthetically different music of the same outlook and approach to the essential mechanics of music get grouped together). I'm voting with my feet.

I'm thinking of a Black "metal" history month to honor black musicians within metal. This will help out the black metal community by giving detail to the public of black metals history and the artistic boundaries that it has explored. February sounds like a good month for Black "metal" history.

Just what we need: another cynical sofa-sitter to criticize, then sit on his fat ass doing nothing.

All human discussions degenerate into bickering because of the individualism of humans. They can't get over themselves.

Slaves, you serve.

What is needed to complete this thread now is a decision, my opinion is that there has been enough discussion. The suggestion made in the OP cannot be taken any further without a consensus which than then be applied. You, as the original poster have designated yourself as the leader of this particular discussion, therefore it would seem that the decision is up to you, I think everyone here is mature enough to accept the outcome, whatever that may be.

I also agree with the effort to contain quality bands under one or a few labels that specialize in such music. While I really like the idea of free music, I also think there is something special in owning a hard, tangible copy of an album (be it in vinyl, tape or CD format) that you just don't get from purely digital storage mediums.

For Cosmic Atrophy's release, I am really excited that the labels who are releasing it are going to sell it for rather cheap. I think that provides even more of an incentive to purchase the album, or at least I hope so.

As far as reforming metal itself, I do not think that will be much affected by the names that people decide to give it. While a new label might be necessary, it should only be validated if the music it is attached it is actually different from something pre-existing. Simply calling a death metal band "hessian metal" won't really make it so, I'd say.

Bands should be united by content rather than "styles". Putting categories of metal will only limit it. We can agree in the fact that bands like Averse Sefira, although they are the best in what they do, still appreciatedby inert apes who only care about jumping against each other while "gettin' drunk n' stoned".Basically, just promoting new bands wont fix it. The worm of trends has been eating metal from inside for a couple of years.Radical changes are needed in order to bring back the glory of this "ART".